<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2019 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Such flawed logic',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<section id="religion">
	<h2>Religion</h2>
	<p>
		This second book of Nephi makes a bizarre chain of claims.
		First, it says if there is law, there can be no sin.
		My understanding is that a &quot;sin&quot; is a breaking of orders given to you by Yahweh.
		Basically, these orders are law.
		So by definition, no, without the law of Yahweh, there could be no sin.
		That makes perfect sense.
	</p>
	<p>
		Next, it says that without sin, there could be no righteousness.
		Um ...
		It&apos;s a bit tough to buy this one.
		Even without law and sin, you could still act in righteousness.
		Morality exists even without laws and crimes.
		Yahweh isn&apos;t necessary for creating a moral framework.
		Moral frameworks are also completely subjective, no matter who&apos;s moral frameworks they are.
		That means that yes, if Yahweh is real, even his moral framework is completely subjective.
		Because of how much power he holds and what he&apos;ll do to those that disobey, it might be best for everyone that they submit to this framework for their own self-preservation.
		However, that doesn&apos;t actually make that moral framework any more valid than any other.
	</p>
	<p>
		Things only get less realistic from there.
		The next claim is that without righteousness, there can be no happiness.
		There are loads of people that get great joy from harming others.
		Happiness exists without righteousness.
		Furthermore, if you&apos;re claiming that without Yahweh&apos;s laws, there can be no righteousness, that means that without Yahweh&apos;s laws, even being the kindest and most-helpful person on the planet isn&apos;t righteous.
		If this is the case, there&apos;s also the joy of helping other people, which you&apos;re claiming without Yahweh isn&apos;t righteous.
		Happiness gotten from both good and evil exist with or without the existence of Yahweh.
	</p>
	<p>
		Next, it&apos;s claimed that without righteousness and happiness, there can be no punishment nor misery.
		Punishment is usually put on someone that breaks rules laid out by a particular moral framework.
		That framework isn&apos;t always the one supposedly laid out by Yahweh.
		I suppose without any moral framework, there wouldn&apos;t be any true punishments, so I guess the first part of that statement is correct.
		However, it&apos;s meant to build upon there being no righteousness without Yahweh, which this statement makes even less valid.
		There can definitely be punishments without Yahweh&apos;s framework as long as another framework or frameworks exist.
		And there are a multitude of moral frameworks in this world.
		Each person has a slightly-different one.
		As for misery, if there was no happiness to contrast it with, there probably wouldn&apos;t be a word for misery, but that doesn&apos;t mean it wouldn&apos;t really exist.
		You&apos;d be living in a constant state of it without any alternative.
		Well, there would be the alternative of not living at all.
		Honestly, I can see it being close enough to claim this statement is true.
		However, again, I can&apos;t emphasise enough that the first part of this statement - the part about punishment - is supposed to build on invalid claims, and without those claims, that part of the statement doesn&apos;t hold the meaning it&apos;s intended to.
	</p>
	<p>
		Next, it&apos;s claimed that without any of the previously-discussed things - law, sin, righteousness, happines, punishment, and misery - there could be no Yahweh.
		I&apos;m not sure how to interpret that.
		I guess if Yahweh existed, so would these things.
		Yahweh would make sure these things became real.
		But having these things doesn&apos;t mean there&apos;s necessarily a Yahweh creating them.
		It&apos;s a classic &quot;A implies B but B does not imply A&quot; situation.
	</p>
	<p>
		Next, the book claims that if there&apos;s no Yahweh, there&apos;s no us and there&apos;s no earth, because Yahweh needed to exist to create us.
		That&apos;s completely bonkers.
		Yes, we exist, but that doesn&apos;t mean a god did it.
		And even if a god <strong>*did*</strong> do it, you can push the argument back so many times that you can find the flaw in the reasoning.
		If a god exists, that god&apos;s creator has to exist.
		And for the god&apos;s creator to exist, the god&apos;s creator&apos;s creator has to exist.
		Push this back enough times, and there&apos;s no one there to act as the previous creator.
		There&apos;s got to be a start to the chain.
		But if you accept that someone or something could exist without a creator - for example, saying no one created Yahweh - then there&apos;s no reason why we couldn&apos;t exist without a creator.
		Yes, Yahweh might be the start of the chain.
		However, we might instead be the start of the chain and Yahweh might not even exist.
		The final argument of this section brings the whole house of cards tumbling down, showing just how insane the set of arguments are.
		A couple valid points are made, but on the whole, this section is just lunacy.
	</p>
	<p>
		All the above was written about one verse in the book.
		Seriously.
		There&apos;s that much madness packed into one verse.
		After that rant though, I don&apos;t feel like writing a whole lot more.
		I&apos;d like to touch on a couple things though.
		First, the book continues that we&apos;re punished for the transgressions of our parents.
		We have to repent because our parents are sinners.
		Second, the book claims that by following Yawhew, we can live in freedom and everlasting life.
		However, we&apos;re stuck under the rule of our god king at that point.
		We&apos;re alive, but not free.
		The book then claims the alternative is captivity and death.
		However, this option means not being ruled by a god king.
		There&apos;s death, but there&apos;s also liberty.
		So your real options are captivity and everlasting life, or freedom and death.
		I&apos;m unclear on which option is better, but it&apos;s definitely worth noting that the book puts the items in the wrong pairs.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="drudgery">
	<h2>Drudgery</h2>
	<p>
		My discussion post for the day:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			To be honest, I&apos;ll likely switch to Perl if its function/constant/class namespaces are anything like $a[PHP]&apos;s and functions/constants/classes can&apos;t be redefined.
			These are the things I really like in $a[PHP], and I&apos;ve yet to see them done that way in another language.
			It&apos;s the reason I stick with $a[PHP] in nearly everything I code, despite the language&apos;s many problems.
			I was told by another member of my $a[LUG] that $a[PHP] is &quot;Perl done wrong&quot;, so it&apos;s very likely Perl has most of the language constructs I&apos;ve grown to love.
			Bonus points if Perl includes type hinting and/or strong typing.
			That&apos;s not a hard requirement; I got along with $a[PHP] long before it had type hinting, but honestly, I think all languages should have one of the two.
		</p>
		<p>
			That by no means would mean that Perl is the most-awesome language ever though if I switch to it, to be clear.
			If I switch, it won&apos;t be because Perl is a great language.
			It just means it has a similar style as $a[PHP], but without some of $a[PHP]&apos;s problems.
			I&apos;ve turned down plenty of better languages just because I can&apos;t write my code in them the way I prefer to.
		</p>
		<p>
			I wouldn&apos;t mind getting set up on GitLab pages.
			It&apos;d be better than my current host.
			I had someone offer me an account on their GitLab server that had GitLub pages, but the Web server was configured incompatibly with my website.
			Specifically, it didn&apos;t allow directory index pages to be in $a[XHTML] format, and every page of my website is in $a[XHTML].
			That wasn&apos;t an issue with GitLab pages though, it was just a configuration issue in the server.
			Adding <code>index.xhtml</code> to the list of index page names in Apache or NGINX or whatever Web server was in use would have fixed it, but they didn&apos;t want to do that.
		</p>
		<p>
			I&apos;m still not sure I can finish the material before the learning journal (and thus my report on it) is due.
			I&apos;m stuck at home all week starting tomorrow though, while I recover from very minor surgery, so I&apos;ll catch up then.
			I&apos;ve got to take the week off from work and won&apos;t be able to go out, so I&apos;ll have nothing but time to read massive documents thrown at us by this course.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
</section>
END
);
